PR Company Says It Was Demonized By The World's Biggest Internet Encyclopediahttp://www.businessinsider.com/wiki-pr-ceo-says-wikipedia-ban-was-unfair-2014-1/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:26:03 -0500Julie Borthttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e98bc4ecad043425e84e7bRobert BorbidgeWed, 29 Jan 2014 18:16:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e98bc4ecad043425e84e7b
"I’m licensed in New York and Massachusetts." And he does business in CA, TX, and MO (well, not CA so much anymore. Too many pissed off clients there) Sure would be handy to be licensed to practice law in the states where you do business, now wouldn't it. Or maybe that would act as a sort of constraint on behavior?
It would have been smarter, and harder work, to start a business called 'web-pr' or something like that, and included the Wikipedia 'polishing' as part of the services offered rather than blatantly claiming to offer editing of wikipedia pages for a fee, which is against their T.O.S. (Strike 1: apparently violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) Also, the name 'Wiki-PR' is by itself dangerously close to 'WikiPedia' and other names used by the Wikimedia foundation and can thus readily be called trademark infringement, as long as Wikimedia pursues enforcement (and why wouldn't they? Strike 2: Trademark Infringement) And it's well known that Wikipedia will delete things for any reason or none at all, so promising your clients Wikipedia exposure of any kind is not a promise that can be kept. Charging maintenance fees to re-post deleted entries is practically a straight con. Strike 3 would thus appear to be Fraud.
Just my opinion, but all the events in this case are well documented, so it isn't much of a stretch at all.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e5e2d2ecad0423794d1532Kevin GormanSun, 26 Jan 2014 23:38:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e5e2d2ecad0423794d1532
I put together a few pieces of Wiki-PR's work to demonstrate that a significant portion of their work had nothing to do with libel: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kevin_Gorman/Wiki-PR_Work" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kevin_Gorman/Wiki-PR_Work</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e478076da8116037737522Kevin GormanSat, 25 Jan 2014 21:50:47 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e478076da8116037737522
In my previous comment (which I guess is still in the moderation queue,) I forgot to include one of the funnier (and damning) bits of evidence that French's statements here are disingenious at absolute best. For a while I (along with a number of other Wikipedians) were trying to find a mutually beneficial solution, one that would allow Wiki-PR to operate without harming Wikipedia. The quote below is related to that series of discussions.
Here's a quote from a statement that Jordan French agreed to on the 18th of November. I'd be glad to provide the author of this piece, or any interested journos, proof of its validity: "Wiki-PR has seriously abused Wikipedia’s terms of use (TOS) and community policies. In an attempt to redeem their conduct, Wiki-PR agrees to a comprehensive review of their practices and a detailed program of reform, in collaboration with members of the Wikipedia community."
Wiki-PR's practices have been hugely abusive, and very little (if any) of their work has involved 'legally actionable liable.' I'm also happy to present to the author of this piece (or any other interested journo type person,) temporarily restored versions of articles that Wiki-PR is confirmed to have worked on, so that they can evaluate Wiki-PR's activities for themselves. French&co literally built a network of fake news websites (such as vatalyst.com, which they've since taken down but is accessible via the internet archive) to support their astroturfing efforts on Wikipedia (and in private correspondence, have admitted doing so.)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e43ce5ecad04207706a16aGregory KohsSat, 25 Jan 2014 17:38:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e43ce5ecad04207706a16a
It would have been helpful to this article if it were pointed out how Cooley LLP (the law firm that the Wikimedia Foundation paid donors' dollars to, to issue the cease-and-desist) was itself manipulating Wikipedia content to advantage its own image, using "meatpuppets". I covered this hypocrisy in an Examiner story: <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/wikimedia-law-firm-fiddles-wikipedia-and-jimmy-wales-hides" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.examiner.com/article/wikimedia-law-firm-fiddles-wikipedia-and-jimmy-wales-hides</a> (if I'm allowed to post the link here).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e436da69bedd9b7ebf4626SAL-eSat, 25 Jan 2014 17:12:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e436da69bedd9b7ebf4626
"What are we actually doing? We’re starting with legally actionable libel. People call us. They’re upset. They’re crying. They're pissed. They typically have a lot of money. They are one hair trigger away from suing the Wikimedia Foundation and/or trying to subpoena to find out who the editors are who smeared them, whether it is an anonymous IP [address], which is almost always the case, or an actual editor."
This part doesn't even past the BS smell test. Have you ever hear a lawyer who have "legally actionable libel" on hand, a emotional client with "lot of money", and party to sue to refuse to file a lawsuit?
Yeah right. Person with money always gets his 'justice'. The only reason why they don't sue in court of law is because they know that the truth will come out on official record. Those people just want to pay somebody to cover-up unpleasing information about them.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e4333eeab8eac317deadf0krypticSat, 25 Jan 2014 16:57:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e4333eeab8eac317deadf0
These guys got caught and now they are whining about it. Life is tough when your business case involves you doing what you aren't allowed to do.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e41cb46bb3f74348deadefsnakiSat, 25 Jan 2014 15:21:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e41cb46bb3f74348deadef
Instead of complaining why doesn't Wiki-Pr create their own PR (i.e. propaganda) website. If they are more reliable and truthful than Wikipedia they would surely become more popular. That's the free market.